10 NICS App. 78, LaCLAIR v. BYRD (January 2012)
IN THE SKOKOMISH TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
SKOKOMISH INDIAN RESERVATION
SKOKOMISH, WASHINGTON
LaMetta and Patrick LaClair, Plaintiffs/Appellees,
v.
James and Laurie Byrd, Defendants/Appellants.
No. SKO-Ci-06/10-428 (January 9, 2012)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court found defendants negligent in allowing a fire to spread to the plaintiff neighbors’ property, and awarded plaintiffs $52,408.00 in damages for property destroyed and income lost. Court of Appeals concludes that trial court’s findings of fact were supported by evidence in the record and therefore not clearly erroneous, and that trial court correctly applied common law concerning negligence and committed no errors of law. Trial court judgment affirmed.
|
Eric Nielsen, Chief Judge; Lisa L. Atkinson, Judge; Richard A. Woodrow, Judge. |
|
|
LaMetta LaClair, pro se; James Byrd and Laurie Byrd, pro se. |
OPINION
This matter comes before the Skokomish Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to an appeal from a trial court decision finding Defendants negligent and awarding Plaintiffs $52,408.00 in damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Skokomish Tribal Code (STC) 3.01.063, the standard of review for an appeal from a trial court decision is as follows:
(1) for questions of fact, the standard shall be the ‘clearly-erroneous’ standard;
(2) for questions of law, the standard shall be ‘de novo’ to determine whether a mistake of law was made by the trial court;
10 NICS App. 78, LaCLAIR v. BYRD (January 2012), p. 79
(3) for questions of fact for which it is asserted the trial court made a decision which is grossly unsound, unreasonable, illegal or unsupported by the evidence, the standard shall be ‘abuse of discretion’.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging a fire in the Appellants’ smokehouse ignited bags of newspapers that allowed the fire to spread to Plaintiff’s property destroying their home, personal possessions and fishing boats and gear. Plaintiff’s alleged the destruction of their fishing boats and gear damaged their ability to earn a living from fishing.
The trial was bifurcated. A trial on liability was held on September 30, 2010. The trial court found Defendants negligent in failing to use reasonable care to keep the smokehouse fire from spreading to Plaintiff’s property. On October 21, 2010, the trial court entered detailed written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
A trial on the alleged damages Plaintiffs suffered as a result of Appellants’ negligence was held on June 23, 2011. Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the court found Plaintiffs were entitled to economic damages of $44,408.00 and non-economic damages of $8,000.00. The trial court filed detailed written findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 15, 2011.
Appellants filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 2011. The notice of appeal asserts: “Defendant was not negligent and did use reasonable care to keep smokehouse fire from spreading’... smokehouse fire was out as defendant stood in it and swept it out. Fireworks were a probable cause of the fire ... my smokehouse did not cause the fire and there was no negligence.” In light of certain ministerial errors committed by the court clerk and pursuant to a liberal interpretation of the Skokomish Appellate Rules, this Court accepted the notice of appeal as timely filed. Both parties filed briefs and oral argument was heard on December 9, 2011. Appellants failed to appear for oral argument.
ANALYSIS
The evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact. Appellants asserted at trial and on appeal something or someone else caused the fire, either fireworks or people smoking outside near the smokehouse, and therefore they were not negligent. Plaintiffs presented testimony from Skokomish Public Safety Officer Matt Brown that Appellants admitted the fire appeared to have started in the smokehouse. Plaintiffs’ evidence also include the Mason County Fire Marshall’s report that the fire escaped from Appellants’ smokehouse, ignited three bags of combustible newspapers next to the smokehouse and spread to Plaintiffs’ property. The only evidence
10 NICS App. 78, LaCLAIR v. BYRD (January 2012), p. 80
presented by Appellants in support of the theory the fire was caused by fireworks was the testimony of Appellant Jams Byrd.1
Byrd also testified once he started the fire at between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., the only time he checked on it was when he was awoken at 3:00 a.m. and he only checked to see if there was any smoke coming from the smokehouse. By 6:30 a.m. the fire had spread to plaintiffs’ property.
The trial court weighed the evidence and found Plaintiff’s evidence more credible. The trial court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. Its findings support its legal conclusion that Appellants were negligent. STC 3.01.063(1). Appellants do not claim the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, illegal, unsound or unsupported by the evidence. STC 3.01.063(3). Even if Appellants had made that claim, we find based on the evidence submitted at trial the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Moreover, we find there was no mistake of law. STC 3.01.063(2). In the absence of any Skokomish Tribal case law on point, the trial court relied on the common law of negligence that holds landowners have a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would under like circumstances to control the spread of fire on their land even if they are not negligent in starting the fire. LeClercq Marine Const. Inc. v. Leco, Inc., 12 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1993); Criscola v. Gugliemelli, 50 Wn.2d 29, 308 P. 2d 239 (1957). Under that standard, the trial court found Plaintiffs met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellants owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care to control the spread of their fire onto Plaintiffs’ property. Appellants’ actions in not extinguishing the fire but only checking at 3:00 a.m. to see if there was any smoke coming from the smokehouse was unreasonable and a breach of that duty which allowed the fire to damage Plaintiffs’ property. The trial court relied upon the correct legal standards. Based on the facts, the trial court did not commit an error of law.
The trial court’s decision is affirmed.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court’s Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.
On appeal, Appellants have submitted the statement of their son, James Byrd III, that he and another person were smoking by the smokehouse at about 5:30 a.m. on the morning of the fire and threw their cigarette butts on the ground. The statement is dated November 30, 2010. Although this Court can accept additional evidence, we choose to rely on the evidence submitted at trial. Given Mr. Byrd's relationship to the Appellants, and given that the statement was made more than half a year prior to the issuance of the trial court's final order, we find refusing to consider this additional evidence will not result in a clear injustice. STC 3.01.111.